tv [untitled] March 27, 2012 5:30am-6:00am PDT
the mechanical room is stacked three levels. those three levels are eventually going to become four levels, which the mechanical room is right above the quarter retail store. my concern is -- hal is the a distribution intake and out? the mechanical room has a lot of noise that will be created on that corner. parking talks about clear heights, but suv's are 6 feet. with that two, it would be a total of 15 feet. right now, we would go with a structure of 3 feet, 6 inches, would be a total of 22 feet, which means it must become another level for parking.
[bell rings] >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello and thank you for your time. i am here to talk on behalf of the golden gateway facility. i am a professional lives and works in san for cisco. i work downtown. first, i am going to talk about my personal community association with the club, and i would also like to talk about the impacts to washington street. first of all, i would like to say that since my living in san francisco, having membership access to the golden gate way recreational facility has had a significant positive impact on my life in terms of social access, i would say, as an avid tennis player, i spent probably
three or four nights a week at the club, attending barbeques, tennis matches, and gaining access to friends and community. i appreciate that it is a vibrant community at the club, not like one of the country clubs where you have to be approved to join. anyone can become a member. i would also said it is a safe, open space. living in south of market, and there is not a lot of green space. it has become midas factor back yard. i often call this facility a gem and an oasis and what a great thing for san francisco. in addition, and going to talk about three things that i think would be a problem. looking a developer designs, they talk about what a great improvement it will be on washington street. my three key points are i think it will impact the skyline negatively. i think the sidewalk proposal is actually a take away, not an improvement. furthermore, i think st. configuration will cause traffic havoc. the skyline and visibility will
be diminished. if you look from across the park, you can see coit tower from the neighborhood, and it will be but it right up against the property line, and you will have a huge building with a tall fence that will be taking away that visibility. i think that is a shame. i also think that some of the photographs -- on the online site, they talk about the not attract the fences, etc. i do not think that is a fair assessment because there are a lot of great proposals that could be a great alternative. secondly, with the sidewalk proposal, i am not coming to talk today as an architecture person or designer. i am an actuary by trade, so i think in the language of mathematics. looking at their designs with the sidewalk proposal, they talk about a 27-foot sidewalk. i do not think that is true. right now, there is a 10-foot walkable sidewalk. if you, it added to components,
there's only four feet that is walkable sidewalk. the rest is either car that's, sitting space that you cannot walk through, or a restaurant area, so i think that is a problem. finally, with traffic, i believe there will be a parking in the right now the washington corridor is a great way to get out the embarcadero, and i think there will be a lot of turns coming out of that. think you for your time. -- thank you for your time. >> karen mccarthy. ted gullinson. >> my name is michael allen of. i have been a member of the golden gateway for about the past three years. i meet friends and play tennis their three-four days per week. nothing in this project would
replace that. the project is asking the city and the board for a lot. not one of the rationales for that is this project will provide additional open space for the people of san francisco, and i just wanted to briefly dispute the proposition. if you walk around the facility as it is, most of these areas are already open. actual addition to the open space are insignificant. there is the jackson corridor, and what the developer is calling pacific park. there is a slight widening to this walkway. most of that is going to be in shade most of the day, and i do not see how the city of san
francisco is better off for it. the idea that being able to sit in the shade and have a cup of coffee at a cafe as a sort of replacement for the types of opportunities that the club prisons noesents now, i do not , and asked that the board not accept. thank you. >> good morning. my name is marie and up. i work in embarcadero center -- center just a block from the proposed development. i wanted to focus this morning on one aspect of the development, and that is the elimination of the tennis courts. in concert with that, the development of a new expanded fitness facility.
i think this is a bad trade. the tennis courts offer unique, outdoor recreational space. it is well-used by people of all ages who live and work in the neighborhood. in contrast, the proposed private indoor gym would simply duplicate facilities that are already abundant in the area. by my count, there are already 20 -- 20 indoor facilities in the financial district. all offer pretty much the exact same thing. they have aerobic machines come a week equipment, and they have the group exercise class is that include yoga in spending. -- and spinning. the problem is not everyone enjoys boot camp workout. if people want to go outside and play a sport with friends, the
only option anywhere nearby is the gateway. furthermore, private indoor facilities such as the one proposed all pretty much target the same people, working adults in their mid-twenties to early 40's. if you go into any of these facilities, he will go to children iron -- are entirely absent seniors are few and far between. in contrast, the tennis courts serve the people of all ages. not only our children allowed to use the equipment, but they are encouraged to play. on any given day you could drop by the gateway and you will see kids whose brackets are bigger than they are learning how to make contact with the ball for the first time. the gateway offers a variety of programs, including lessons and clinics, exhibition matches, tournaments, and even charity events -- all available to members and non-members alike.
in the summer the courts are used every day by the kids camp were children aged 4-10 can go out to learn how to play tennis, and also use the 63,000 square foot recreational space to run around outside and play games. finally, it is worth noting seniors represent 30% of the people who use the tennis courts on a regular basis. right next to those kids are groups of seniors that have been getting together for the past 30 years. i am emphasizing this not only because the district includes a large number of seniors, but also because for many seniors and many of the rest of us, tennis is the only sport they can enjoy. >> thank you very much. to go after these three speakers, charles duncan, a leap ratner, and bill mackovich.
>> hello. i'm carol a courtney. i joined the of the weight recreation facility. i was able to afford access to recreational activities. on the secretarial southerly of under $20,000 per year. i have never been able to afford a home with an outdoor space in the city, but i have been able to afford this respite from dark in cramped city living -- living for my family. the developers' proposal is not the right solution for the residents in the roads of the city. it violates a 35 year city policy to rot -- not raise heights. it does a disservice to the community by the string outdoor recreation, access to residents who grew up with the first
nation to the city. it does that keep or enhanced unique character of you take a ride or the city as a whole. it does not reconnect san francisco to the waterfront and put a wall that has all hard shaded and narrow edge along the waterfront, blocking views. why are we giving away this land? a community developer. why are we still entertaining the thought of accepting the proposal with the gateway land owners and the ports are the only ones that will truly benefit? ever since the developer established a relationship with the port, the proposal revisions have been self-serving. the quality of life mandated by the city general plan is not even of being considered. the developers' proposal is out voted. it does not consider present needs, nor does it look towards the future. it is another city so lot of
land to a developer who will profit from building luxury condos at the expense of the elderly, disabled and middle income families. there are alternatives such as the aged redesign unit, which provides a comprehensive and feasible plan that is pragmatic and reconnect our neighborhoods, promotes mixed use, it makes the area of vital destination for all residents, and create as many or more jobs than the developers' proposal. why are we looking at the whole picture? why are we alternatives? why are we looking towards other world-class cities such as the hudson river park, portland's riverfront, and santa monica beach house. we need to pause, think, innovate, and consider alternatives that look of the neighborhood as a whole, and that promote quality of life for all city residents.
not for those who can afford luxury condos. thank you very much. >> i am charles studkin. this december i will have lived in golden gate way for 30 years in one of the studios. this is an elite organization that is supposed to do this creeping of the land that was approved by you all over so many years, eventually approved by the planning commission to be there. that is the president. i do not know if we will overturn president or not, but we're hopeful that you will not. i was asked to speak on this narrow topic about this not being a private club. i am just aghast i have to speak
on this subject. i have told planning and riding and many times it is not a private club, and i have told them why. in a private club like st. francis' ordeal led the club, a member sit on the board of directors. they take jobs as officers. they run the club. they approve of people, and disapprove people. they throw people out. this is a business. it has club in the title like safeway has the club card, or some businesses on broadway have club in the title. [laughter] it is no different than the hair club for men at. it is just a business that sells recreation. they have resorts around the world and other things. when i hear the developer come up this morning and say they do not want a private, members-only
club, it is an attempt to skew the opinion of land use. this, i am afraid, has been the case with planning. i have to come up here, of planning continues to put out things about it being a private club. i want to quote something i am sure everyone in here agrees with that mayor lee said yesterday. we must always be held to the highest legal and ethical standards. standards of decency and good faith required of all public officials. when i became so frustrated about this public club issue, i looked into not only planning, which gets the space from the port and everyone is together -- it is not like sales force where they go out and get less expensive space, i found that she justified her salary online at based on the pay of the port
commissioner in los angeles. i do not know some of the other things, if they compare at all, but the $3 million that will be paid is what monicker more your conversed from public funds to her family in just three years. she has paid 330 some thousand per year. >> thank you very much. i will remind folks for safety reasons we cannot lock the door. standing there is not allowed. it appears there are seats available. good afternoon. my name is lee radner.
we have met on many other occasions, as you know. i will keep my comments very brief, because the eloquence see of a number of our members here today have been at beyond what i could do. i am delivering to you petitions opposing this project and supporting the position. there are hundreds and hundreds of names in there, but most important, i urged you to take a look at the zip codes. they come from all over this city. we are not an md organization. there is also a package there here for mr. guy. i wanted the commissioners and planning staff to make sure they
have that to put into the planning file. i put down what was shown as the recreational and open space developed by the redevelopment agency in the 1970's. nothing has changed. if you do pass on the developer's project, i feel all you are doing is putting another nail in the coffin of our middle class citizens, and middle- income people in this city. thank you very much. >> bill hannon, george haymacker, arthur chang. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is bill bankovich. we have been at in the golden gate area for over 32 years.
i urge you to vote no on the proposed development. why? this project is a disaster. disaster for recreation. it is devastating for middle- class families and seniors like my wife and me who live in this community. the eir fails to adequately adjuaddressed the subject. our coalition of volunteers were able to save a san francisco tennis club from becoming condominiums several years ago. we are in the same battle now. i have submitted to all of you a specific comments about the eir and deficiencies. the document i commented on this not even include the current proposal. keywords i want to mention here
from the eir, loss of the site would be temporary. temporary is not correct. the loss of the tennis courts is permanent. how can anyone say or vote the eir is adequate, when all of the statements do not apply any more. lastly, what about roads? this of -- specifically, policy 2.11, support of recreational facilities that provide a community benefit. i do not understand why the eir does not address this with regard to impact on the neighborhood. if you vote yes, which you are going to do, you will be
creating a gated community for 134 super rich people, and as a bonus, you will be creating a wall of wealth along the embarcadero. and you think the existing windscreen it looks bad. i want to submit that as my written comments. thank you very much. >> fellow, commissioners. my name is bill hannon. our members live in a 1254 residential complex next to the proposed construction site. i am concerned the eir is incomplete on the subject of construction noise as discussed in my letter to the planning commission of february 28. as stated in the letter, there will be three-four months of pile driving at the site only 60
feet from the nearest gate we building just across from st., which has 440 residential apartments in it. between 700 and 1100 piles will be driven to depths between 93- 130 feet, including some bedrock. kayhill contracts predict the noise will be between 100-110 decibels at a distance of 50 feet reduce by muffling of equipment to 85-95 decibels. the epa has set 75 decibels as a limit for human health and welfare for a period of eight hours. safeguards are needed regarding noise generated by a pile drivers. my letter asks any construction permits be conditioned on specified maximum sound levels and require on-site monitoring for sound levels and it specify who the monitors will be.
they should be independent of the contractors of course. if you have ever been near a construction site, you probably heard pile driving. the noise of pile driving at this site will have a severe adverse impact on residents of the gateway come at many of whom are elderly, retired, or both, and many of them may be driven out of their apartments for prolonged amount of time. we ask you to vote no on these proposals. thank you. >> think you. i am stan the bernharandy bernh. -- thank you. i have only two comments. i am just going to talk about policy issues. as you know, a san francisco has
the highest percentage of any major city of childless households. many experts say this is due to a shortage of affordable housing. when you take a project such as this and ask them to contribute to a fund, there is absolutely no assurance that this money that goes into the fund will ever be used for low-cost housing. you have a golden opportunity to stop this. we know this issue is important. it is in the paper every day. it is that even up the project will not help any affordable issues, but in my opinion, it is deplorable. it is deplorable to support any new housing on our precious water front, which needs a major zoning variance. you will be opening the floodgates to the developers.
you can be sure there will be others lined up against him. this is a really tough decision for you all to make. i know that. you were given this job to make tough decisions. thank you. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. my name is george haymaker. i am a member of the golden gate way tennis and swim club. a lot has been said this morning and afternoon about the great deal the city gives up and the very little the city gives back. i think that is all of it, and the reason why every neighborhood association from telegraph hill to the benefits of this trip are opposed to this project. let me personalize this is a little bit for you. my wife and i our senior citizens. she is unfortunately not here because she is debilitating
arthritis. the other form of acceptable exercise for her is a warm water pool, where she can exercise, take water aerobics class is come and exercise by herself with the help. -- with my help. the only place it is available anywhere in our neighborhood is the gold way -- will the gate tennis club. if she does not have that facility, in many average class citizens who need a place to exercise and have a healthy environment, what will happen to her the the at least two years that the club is destroyed? what happens in the long-term? we do not know what the club will be like in terms of its policies. we do know for two years she will not have the opportunity to work out, her mother -- muscles
will atrophy further, and she will become less mobile than she is today. what is the trade-off in the public interest in favor of rolling this club? where are the benefits other than the profits for the developer? i cannot see them come and i have looked at the eir carefully. i hope you will look at the public interest, which is the thing of which you are charged. >> steve stone. dave osegood and barbara stewart. >> good morning. my name is arthur chang. i am a member of the northeast waterfront group. i have been with this project for the past three years. i used to appear before the park and recreation commission.
i find that i can talk to both of you directly. i am here not to speak so much as all of these passionate neighbors have talked about this project, but i am here to talk about what this meeting is for, which is to certify this eir as a final document. i have the assurance that this is not the last event. is of this as final as it can get? ultimately the issue will probably be resolved in court. i see that happening here. i sent the planning commissioners, whose email i cannot seem to work, i must have something in the wrong place, but nevertheless, the beef i
have with this final eir, it is lacking in credibility. it does not abide by the code, the code of seqa and disregards the guidelines. i do not know how many of the planning commissioners have read the whole two volumes, but i know mr. miguel has, because he was well represented in the comments he made. i concur with his eloquence. to contribute eloquence and design is something to be dismissed is absurdity. i think what is important that this not be certified as final. all of the shortcomings. the law was created as a last resort for communities individuals